Didn't work for me

[Billux]

I gave 8.5 a go. Didn't like it very much, Campaign seemed pretty much like vanilla, didn't notice much difference, but battle mechanics made battle too easy.

I played Prussian, H/H with ultra units.

1. First battle against several Citizenry units. By numbers sides were equal, AI was bit stronger but I had line infantry and two cav units. In the battle my side received 38 casualties but AI lost 700-800. During the battle one of my cav units charged on one citizenry unit. Result: my cavallery had no casualties at all, enemy citizenry routed after few seconds when they lost about 30 guys. Then my cavalry hunted the rest 130 citizens. Cavalry is overpowered in vanilla, but still.

At one point a citizen unit went inside the town hall. I decided to let my guys shoot at them for a while before entering. I moved three units close. After few of minutes of intensive shooting my units had lost 40 guys in total. They lost a single man. And I believe it was because of friendly fire. Now, I don't feel it's very realistic. If someone shoots at you, you can shoot at him. If you are in the open, and he hides most of the time, sure he has better chance to kill you, but he still has to come to the window to shoot. Then is your chance, as you know he will be in that window. This is how it is done even in those days. In these cases people in buildings died too. Vanilla is much closer to reality in this way.

2. After the battle I moved my army and left only two weak units to defend the city. Bavarians declared a war and marched their army (bigger one) over the border. I moved my army back to meet theirs and then noticed that I made a mistake. Enemy could easily go round and take the city without a threat. On their turn Bavarians moved beside to the city, and then walked back. Well lucky me!

3. I attacked Bavarians. Both armies almost equal, except I had one artillery more but one line infantry less. My side suffered less than 200 losses, theirs over 700. Some of it because of constant friendly fire, their second line tried to fire through their first line.

4. In the east Courland started a war. Polish minded their own business, though in my earlier Prussian game they harassed me all the time. Courlanders moved an army on my land and I attacked it. Equal on size, but their infantry was all militia as mine was infantry. I still suspected the battle to be costly. Well. Forget it. My side lost 200, theirs 1500. My side lost that much, as I forgot to turn off artillery when I moved my infantry forwards. Their militia routed all the time. My cavalry units got many stripes for their "heroic" deeds.

This was enough. I don't want to put anyone down, as I've made mods and helped to make them in different games and I respect the hard work without pay modders do. But this is honest feedback from one person. I sincerely feel vanilla AI acted better and it's mechanics are tuned better. And yes, more realistic.

[Lebowski]

Theres already a feedback thread. The AI on both Campaign and Battles is much improved for me(As Russia H/H). Certainly not passive, I've even had super powers form(Prussia) and then be crushed by the next one.(Poland)

[Atlanton]

1. Cavalry are the bane of infantry, and these are armed citizens you are talking about. Not drilled professional soldiers.

I cannot speak on a historical realism basis, but my guess is that the reason that musket fire on buildings is not effective is exactly the same as the reason for the ineffectiveness of grapeshot broadsides from range on an enemy's port or starboard. The wood would probably be strong enough to absorb the majority of the musket balls while the inaccuracy of the musket would make it almost impossible to shoot through a window. I personally never fire upon garrisoned buildings, and always go for the melee charge.

2. This is definitely aggravating.

3. There really isn't much you can do about this. Unless modders find a way to make the AI form formations that don't hit each other in the back. Hell, even my own formations require me to turn off fire at will, or else my reserve units will use my line infantry for target practice.

4. Militia are not professional troops. There a notch above armed citizenry, but they aren't meant to go toe to toe with line infantry. And of course, since you had a cavalry and they had no square formation, bayonets, or cavalry of their own, it is understandable why your forces would be so dominant.


I do agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think it is an issue of unit balance as you bring up. One of the things that has bugged me about all vanilla TW games is that in order to compensate for AI they often balance the game in completely unrealistic and questionable ways.

I think the real issue is a inadequate AI having to deal with a very very complex campaign map. It seems like the CPU has a bit of an issue being able to adapt to the situation of their empire (which is completely understandable, to be honest). For example, in a perfect world, the CPU would that you have a heavy line infantry and cavalry stack, and make a similarly composed stack while researching bayonets and square formation. However, who knows what the limit of the AI is...

[Feanaro]

1. I don't see anything wrong with the battle outcome, except you probably should have lost a few more men. Militia were notoriously unreliable, unless used properly. Expecting them to fight an equal or slightly lesser number of line infantry would be silly. Hopefully Darth can get the AI to use more line infantry if this is a problem. Now, for the house. Yes, it might seem nuts that you only hit one person but even if the behavior isn't realistic, it encourages a realistic outcome: you should charge the building or blast it apart with cannons. You wouldn't sit there and duke it out, musket for musket, with an enemy behind cover when you have none.

I cannot speak on a historical realism basis, but my guess is that the reason that musket fire on buildings is not effective is exactly the same as the reason for the ineffectiveness of grapeshot broadsides from range on an enemy's port or starboard. The wood would probably be strong enough to absorb the majority of the musket balls

I doubt that. The British Land Pattern rifles(AKA the Brown Bess), typical of the time, fired what amounts to a 12 gauge shotgun slug. Diameters are similar(.71~ for the musket, .72~ for the shotgun), with a weight of about one ounce for both. The velocity for the musketball was fairly low, around a thousand feet a second. That will still penetrate a wooden wall though, especially one made of softer wood.

while the inaccuracy of the musket would make it almost impossible to shoot through a window.

Within 25 yards, you could most certainly hit a window if you had any shooting ability. It's getting on about 50 yards and out that muskets had problems hitting individual targets.

I personally never fire upon garrisoned buildings, and always go for the melee charge.

I blow them down with cannons when I can.

[Ondaderthad]

I remember reading somewhere (?) that they didn't aim with muskets. Just point in the right direction. And also most soldiers fired with their eyes closed to avoid the "flash in the pan" .

[Feanaro]

I remember reading somewhere (?) that they didn't aim with muskets. Just point in the right direction. And also most soldiers fired with their eyes closed to avoid the "flash in the pan" .

There's some truth there. Many muskets lacked proper sights, though some had a front sight or bayonet lug that would suffice as one. However, that doesn't mean it can't be aimed at close range, even up to 100 yards. The effective range would be more like 50 yards for a man sized target though.

It's also true that many soldiers didn't aim though. Individual marksmanship training wasn't a high priority at the time. There are always those men in the ranks with natural talent or experience though.

[Barabus]

There's some truth there. Many muskets lacked proper sights, though some had a front sight or bayonet lug that would suffice as one. However, that doesn't mean it can't be aimed at close range, even up to 100 yards. The effective range would be more like 50 yards for a man sized target though.

It's also true that many soldiers didn't aim though. Individual marksmanship training wasn't a high priority at the time. There are always those men in the ranks with natural talent or experience though.

Very true, and even at 50 yards, without a rifled barrel, a musket is still pretty wildly inaccurate...not much marksmanship can be taught with a weapon that can't fire accurately

[Gora sahib]

Just FYI, the idiom 'flash in the pan' refers to something that is unsuccessful or a dud. This refers to when the the powder in the pan goes off but does not fire the charge in the barrel and thus not propelling the ball. It has nothing to do with the flash of the charge blinding troops etc.

[Feanaro]

even at 50 yards, without a rifled barrel, a musket is still pretty wildly inaccurate

Troops were often wildly inaccurate but I'd give 35-50% odds of hitting a man sized target at 50 yards for a marksman. The hit rate at 30 yards seems to be about 20 percent, derived from the actual casualties inflicted, and firing by volley was shown to be the least accurate method. Skirmish fire was shown to be more effective, up to twice the hit-rate of volley fire. So, a skirmisher, allowed time to fire accurately and likely picked for his skill, has a decent chance against a lone man at 50 yards.

The average conscript or volunteer probably had little to no chance though.

[xan0therxnumberx]

Just FYI, the idiom 'flash in the pan' refers to something that is unsuccessful or a dud. This refers to when the the powder in the pan goes off but does not fire the charge in the barrel and thus not propelling the ball. It has nothing to do with the flash of the charge blinding troops etc.

i dont beleive you are correct there, the flash in the pan is just the explosive charge of gunpowder that is going off inside the pan after being struck by the flint. to load a musket you cock the hammer, open the pan, bite the end off your cartridge and poured a small amount of powder into the pan, you then put the musket butt down and poured the rest of the charge down the barrel along with the ball and paper as wadding, and ussually this would all then be rammed down the barrel with the ram rod (wouldnt really take as long as it does in ETW ) and if you look at a musket the pan it is directly on the oposite side of the barrel as where your face would be it could be a bit frightening to untrained troops who ive also read would either shut their eyes or entirely turn there head around so they werent even looking at the enemy when shooting (this can even be seen in The Patriot, sorry for the poor reference haha)

[Billux]

Well, as a foreigner I'm not familiar with history of most English terms, I know some, but I can't help with 'flash in the pan'. However I am familiar with history and military history, as I've used 25 years of my life studying it. As a bonus I have fired several weapons, including couple of muskets.

Many people seem to forget, that military history is not as organized as you would imagine after playing computer games. Or chess for that matter. Everyone knows that chessboard pawn represents infantry, a simple soldier, but pawn is only simplistic version of truth serving the purpose to learn basics of tactics.

It's a bit sad, that after this huge contribution irregulars and non-professional soldiers gave to history of warfare their input is not recognized. "Militia were notoriously unreliable, unless used properly". Saying all militia behaved in this or that way is oversimplifying. In many, many cases militia stayed to defend their turf when regular soldiers abandoned the battlefield and stayed there for the last man. In many cases citizens defended their hometowns with fury and after defeat were then executed while their houses burned as a retribution by the invading army, as they had angered the enemy with their stiff and unorthodox defence.

In the Mel Gibson movie 'Patriot' it's said "you can't trust militia" and there's also a scene where a re-enactor turns his head away when he fires his musket. That's not the truth and you should not base your opinions on such movies.

Saying all muskets were alike, like 17th and 18th century muskets were both as inaccurate is another simplification. Muskets were used to hunt. 18th century muskets are not as accurate as sniper rifles today, but they were often rifled and accurate enough to kill an animal (or an enemy) from a distance. People didn't use bows or crossbows anymore, because muskets were better. But they were much slower to reload, so why people used muskets? Because muskets were more accurate and lethal. For men of limited means, as common people were, every shot had to count. Necessity made them good shooters, often better than soldiers in the regular army.

[grbo]

On the other side, in Europe, hunting was most often the priviledge of the nobles. Hunting had, since long, ceased to be the primary mean of subsistance, replaced by agriculture... The average peasant wouldn't have a musket for his own private use.

I would be different with the pioneers in America, but that's another location, another context.

[Billux]

That was the case sometimes, but on the other hand some townsmiths in Europe were skilled enough to manufacture smoothbore muskets by their own means. Besides there were plenty of hunters, poaches and game keepers and old and not so old military weapons used by the common folks.

[grbo]

There were "commoners" that did have to hunt, but these were certainly not "common" in terms of being a majority. The average person of the XVIIIth century in Europe was not a musket user.

[Feanaro]

"Militia were notoriously unreliable, unless used properly". Saying all militia behaved in this or that way is oversimplifying. In many, many cases militia stayed to defend their turf when regular soldiers abandoned the battlefield and stayed there for the last man. In many cases citizens defended their hometowns with fury

There's a significant difference between defending your home and fighting on foreign soil for some big-wig with delusions of grandeur. It's true that not all militias are alike though. Some were quite professional. Those are not the militia in E:TW. Gameplay requires that there be a clear difference between militia and line infantry.

18th century muskets are not as accurate as sniper rifles today, but they were often rifled

Military pattern muskets weren't regularly rifled until the late 18th, early 19th century.

People didn't use bows or crossbows anymore, because muskets were better.

"Because it's better" is only one reason to adopt a technology. It's not the only reason or even the most prevalent. Primitive iron was not a harder or more durable product than bronze but it was easier to work with and, with the proper techniques, easier to obtain. That's only one example of a seemingly inferior product being widely adopted. Firearms are easy to pick up, for one thing. More accurate, possibly.

[Scalylizard]

I just finished an interesting book about "Medieval Warrior" by Martin Dougherty. The author writes that the reason why the firearms grew in popularity was social factors rather than firepower or accuracy. Of course as the focus shifted on firearms, technological advancements followed and it probably only became a more accurate and deadlier weapon toward the late 19th century with the needle pin reloading mechanism and increased rate of fire and accuracy. In the Napoleonic era though,muskets were still not that accurate, that would explain why they would line up and fire for hours..the notion of lining up against each other and firing seems ridiculous to us now because we think in terms of modern weapon firepower and accuracy. If they tried that today the fight would be over in 10 minutes.

For example the author argues that if it were possible to stage a fight with a regiment of 18th century line infantry against medieval longbowmen, the longbowmen would have inflicted more casualties since the musket was inaccurate beyond 50 yards. He adds that most skilled archers could shoot a moving target on the head from 100 yards.

However, training archers is a life long committment and you have to continue training even when they were not fighting: not so much for the crossbows and their modern replacements: muskets. You could give a short training to conscripts and disband them when they fight is over, therefore not spend any money on army upkeep during peace. Investment in archers were just too much to keep it up, especially when the feudalism weakened and social changes made it unfeasible to maintain old ways of raising armies. Also, archers had to have very powerful and toned muscles to be able to shoot.That limits your fighting force a lot- on the other hand you can give any weakling a musket and tell him to shoot regardless of his muscle tone. Another thing was the fatigue. A musketmen can shoot for hours (crossbowmen as well) but archers expanded their energy much quicker, and carrying ammo was a big hassle.


So in summary, the muskets grew in popularity not because they were much accurate , but they were much more convenient, cheaper and deadlier to be used as the weapon of a conscript system.



EDIT: check this link for an article on musket accuracy. On average, let's say it was 5% accurate in battle. Sometimes this number was 1 hit in 450 shots, reducing the accuracy to much lower than 1%. ( note that this is not during target practice where the shooter is relaxed and stress free)

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in...combatmuskets3

[Gora sahib]

i dont beleive you are correct there, the flash in the pan is just the explosive charge of gunpowder that is going off inside the pan after being struck by the flint. to load a musket you cock the hammer, open the pan, bite the end off your cartridge and poured a small amount of powder into the pan, you then put the musket butt down and poured the rest of the charge down the barrel along with the ball and paper as wadding, and ussually this would all then be rammed down the barrel with the ram rod (wouldnt really take as long as it does in ETW ) and if you look at a musket the pan it is directly on the oposite side of the barrel as where your face would be it could be a bit frightening to untrained troops who ive also read would either shut their eyes or entirely turn there head around so they werent even looking at the enemy when shooting (this can even be seen in The Patriot, sorry for the poor reference haha)

Ah the internet ...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flash_in_the_pan

[dougmadman]

I would like to remind you all that at the battle of Saratoga the u.s. army had around 2500 regulars and the rest militia...yes that means at Saratoga militia beat a very professional british and german army composing all professionals and some 50 Indians scouts.

[Billux]

Forgot this thread. To answer Scalylizards well based reply:

I'm halfway through Peter Englund's book Poltava at the moment. In this very vivid book about the Battle of Poltava (1709) are few enlighting passages about muskets.

In one case a group of Swedish army (big part of the Swedish army was Finns btw) tried to ambush a Russian cavalry unit. Swedish cavalry unit tried to tempt a Russian cossack unit to get closer so a hiding 20-man infantry unit could ambush the Cossacks. Soldiers fired a volley with their smoothbore muskets without causing much damage. Weak gunpowder was blamed.
Russians rode away and fired back from a distance (over 200 meters) with accurate rifled muskets, causing several casualties to the Swedes.

Later in the book there's a passage describing the siege of Poltava. During the siege the Russians shot and killed watchmen and diggers from even longer distance harassing the Swedish army which was building their own fortifications and trenches. During a single day five watchmen were shot, their head exploded, on the same spot even though Russians had to make their ammunition using stones and iron as they run out of lead.